WELCOME to TRUTH ... not TASERS

You may have arrived here via a direct link to a specific post. To see the most recent posts, click HERE.

Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Queensland Police "quietly" lift freeze to order more Tasers

April 27, 2011
Michael McKenna, The Australian

QUEENSLAND police are moving to double their Taser armoury after quietly lifting a freeze on the rollout of the stun guns following the 2009 death of a man who was shot up to 28 times with the 50,000-volt device.

More than 1000 new Tasers have been ordered by Queensland police, which will today receive a landmark Crime and Misconduct Commission report on the overhaul of training and policy on the use of the stun guns.

The report -- to be tabled in state parliament -- is understood to call for tough controls on the use of the guns in the face of mounting evidence the weapons are being used by police as an everyday compliance tool and not as a non-lethal substitute for a standard gun in high-risk situations.

Data has been gleaned from each of the existing 1400 stun guns in use and will serve as a baseline to be compared in a future review after more operational changes are introduced in line with the CMC report's recommendations.

Moves to trial alternative stun guns -- including the emerging "Stinger" semi-automatic stun gun -- were abandoned last year after a police trial.

Queensland police confirmed last night that the new guns were expected to be delivered in several weeks. A spokesman said officers were now better trained and had a stricter policy governing the use of the stun guns following a joint police-CMC review.

"This policy ensures a high level of scrutiny is applied to all deployments and review processes are established to address identified trends," the spokesman said.

"The ratio of officers now trained in the use of a Taser compared to the number of weapons available has steadily increased due to the continued suspension of the weapon rollout.

"The QPS has recently placed an order to purchase further Tasers.

"This is to ensure all Taser-qualified officers are able to be equipped with the devices as any unavailability is considered to be an unacceptable risk to the community and Queensland police officers."

A coroner's inquest is continuing into the death of Antonio Galeano, 39, who was repeatedly tasered after he confronted police with a steel bar at his unit in Brandon, south of Townsville.

Police initially told the media he had been shot several times, but an investigation by The Australian revealed the data from the gun showed he had been tasered up to 28 times.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Taser prepares to launch new X2 stun gun

April 18, 2011
Phoenix Business Journal

Taser International Inc. is preparing to launch a new stun gun, the X2, this week.

The company will make the announcement on the product, said to be about the size of its current X26 device, on Wednesday morning.

Officials with Scottsdale-based Taser (Nasdaq: TASR) said the device was the result of consulting with its customers about what they were seeking in a stun gun.

“Thousands of officers participated in the design of the X2 through online surveys, interviews, and focus groups,” said Rick Smith, founder and CEO of Taser, in a statement. “The result is a breakthrough device that integrates key features into a simple, compact design optimized for full-time carry. We look forward to sharing the X2 with the world this Wednesday.”

Taser has been rolling out various new products over the past 18 months with mixed results. It is starting to see some traction with its Axon system that acts as a recording device for law enforcement, but its X3, a three-shot stun gun, has yet to see large orders.

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Talking about tasers

October 7, 2010
Emma Ryan, ABC News

Having listened to the public debate in the last several days about Tasers, it seems to me that Australians need to know more about these weapons.

Since their rollout across the country (which is happening in increments) whenever a police shooting or ‘Taser proximate’ death occurs (I’m being deliberately careful with my language here) we ask ‘why wasn’t there a Taser?’ or ‘are Tasers really safe?’

I think our confusion stems largely from the fact that the public, and even the police, are misinformed about the weapon, distracted by the manufacturer’s spin and presented with impenetrable detail about how Taser’s special electronic wave form cannot kill. There has been very little informed debate on the introduction and use of these weapons, which I believe should be restricted to specialist police because of their capacity to amplify police power beyond what ought to be acceptable in a liberal democracy.

A main focus of the spin around Tasers is that they are very safe and that medical and scientific research supports this. If people die following their use, manufacturers argue it must be something else that killed them (‘excited delirium’, drug toxicity, underlying heart trouble). For young, fit, healthy people, Tasers probably are relatively safe - but for a host of other people, many of whom might predictably come into contact with police regularly, Tasers are not so risk free.

In truth, we do not know much about the safety of Tasers. Not enough research has been done, and too much of what has been done is sponsored, directly or indirectly, by manufacturers.

Another misconception is that Tasers are a useful replacement for firearms. In fact only a relatively small percentage of ‘critical incidents’ lend themselves well to Taser use (suicide prevention being one of them). This is because Tasers fail, often enough for many jurisdictions’ policies to require police to be backed up by a firearm if considering Taser use against someone armed with an edged weapon or a gun. Tasers are simply not as reliable as a firearm in genuinely life threatening situations. While the officer in Sefton on Monday morning was lucky his two barbs made sufficient contact to stop the threat, he was presumably covered by his partner’s firearm in the event of Taser failure.

It seems to me that too much public debate about Taser use by police in Australia is clouded by favourable comparisons of Tasers to firearms. In a truly critical incident, they may well be a useful option, but the fact is that Tasers are used in Australia during mundane policing encounters, involving low levels of threat, with far greater frequency than critical incidents arise.

For instance, in WA in 2009 police drew their Tasers 1,013 times and their use of firearms increased following the introduction of Tasers. Certainly there are occasions when police avoid using firearms because they have recourse to Tasers, such as was the case on Tuesday morning. But more often, Tasers simply replace the use of batons or OC spray.

Evidence from the recent WA police review and Crime and Corruption Commission report highlight this. Police view Tasers as an ‘intermediate’ weapon. Their extensive use against unarmed people during the NSW trial also demonstrates this.

So while it is true that Tasers do have some capacity to ‘save lives’, albeit in very limited circumstances, it must be emphasised that they also have an equal (perhaps even greater) capacity to reinforce police power, along with its corollary, abuse of power. This notion is not so prominent in the debate and deserves much more consideration.

Police, understandably perhaps, prefer Tasers because they present significant advantages over other sublethals. They make suspect compliance easier to obtain, and reduce the strains of ‘the job’. When used correctly, they are less likely to cause injury than a baton (whilst presenting the opportunity to place more distance between police and suspects), and they present no risk of secondary exposure (which can occur when the wind blows capsicum spray back onto police or bystanders).

In Western Australia, Tasers are the ‘weapon of choice’ and so it seems clear that their purpose is not solely to reduce the use of lethal force - although this was certainly the premise upon which they have been introduced in Australian jurisdictions, often on the back of Coronial recommendations, and police union pressure about the importance of officer safety.

Despite such high ideals, the record shows that the majority of Taser ‘uses’ in Australia involve presentation or display only – there is usually no need to fire the weapon to achieve the desired end. Potentially, the same could be achieved with a firearm - although this would probably cause a furore.

Tasers are used in this way, I would argue, largely because of the widespread perception that Tasers cannot kill - and don’t ever say that they can, lest Taser International litigate, as they have successfully done in several US examples where medical examiners have included them as a cause or contributor to a death, and as they did the Canadian Braidwood Commission which followed the death of a polish man at Vancouver Airport. They lost that case – leaving the Commission’s finding, that Tasers can cause death under certain circumstances, to stand.

Without adequate product testing, we are left to test the safety margins of Tasers ‘in the field’. People don’t die during Taser’s research projects, but they do seem to die in the streets (in increasing numbers, now four in Australia and up to 513 in North America).

The facts about why people sometimes die after being Tasered are simply not known. Tasers leave little to no clues for pathologists, who therefore find it difficult to pinpoint cause of death in these cases. Our knowledge is just emerging around these issues. We know plenty about the reality of mission creep though. And while Tasers may have saved the officers lives on Tuesday morning, a firearm could have done the same thing, with far less capacity to slip down the ladder of disproportionate use of force, as Tasers are clearly doing.

Emma Ryan is an Assistant Lecturer in Criminology at Monash University. She is completing a doctoral thesis on sublethal weapons and policing in Australia.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Australia: Target unarmed most of the time Tasers used in controversial trial

July 9, 2010
DYLAN WELCH, Sydney Morning Herald

Only one-third of people stunned or threatened with Tasers by NSW police were armed at the time during a controversial 2008 trial of the weapon.

When he announced the trial the Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, said the weapon would be a valuable replacement to the use of lethal force by police, but data obtained under Freedom of Information shows that most of the time Tasers were used the target was unarmed.

The new statistics come as Greens MP Sylvia Hale, in a letter to the Minister for Police, Michael Daley, called for an inquiry into the trial and resultant cover-up and for Mr Scipione to stand aside.

She based her letter upon documents obtained by the Herald in an investigation into a Taser trial between 2008-2009 that was designed to assuage community concern about the weapon.

"I recognise that ministers are very dependent upon advice provided by senior public servants when adopting significant public policy initiatives," Ms Hale wrote. "It is imperative, therefore, that that advice be accurate, timely, and evidence-based. Regrettably, the documents released, albeit very reluctantly, to the Herald indicate that Commissioner Scipione's advice failed to satisfy those criteria."

Tasers were introduced to NSW police in 2001 but were used only about 50 times by two specialist units until the 2008 trial, when sergeants and inspectors at each of the 80 police commands were given access.

Today 8000 police officers are trained to use the weapon. Since its introduction, 26 officers have been disciplined for not following police operating procedures, and the NSW Ombudsman has received 14 complaints.

Senior police have defended the continued use of the weapon, saying it is a vital policing tool; and the trial, saying it was broadly "successful".

The Herald can also reveal that in five cases a Taser was drawn from its holster because the target was described as a Pacific Islander and considered too big to be arrested by other means, according to internal trial documents.

In none of those cases were the targets, or persons of interest (POIs) as described by police, armed with a weapon. "Police called to location as male was aggressive with hospital staff and is a 180cm and 130 kilogram Pacific Islander. Upon Taser being drawn POI complied with police direction," one brief record of an incident in October 2008 states.

Despite the statements by Mr Scipione that the weapon was an important alternative to lethal force, the target has a weapon in only a third of all 397 cases where the Taser was drawn from its holster.

In the other 263 cases police used the Taser to threaten or stun people who had no weapon. In the majority of those people threatened police with unarmed violence. But in a small number of cases, there was no violence or threatening behaviour at all, according to the documents. In one case a man had a Taser aimed at him after he was the subject of a noise complaint. In another a man was threatened with the weapon after he resisted arrest when police discovered him and a woman having sex in a parked car.

In a January 2009 police were chasing two men who had been involved in an "altercation" when the men stopped and "confronted" the officers.

"One male refused to comply with police direction to show his hands," a brief description stated. "The Taser was deployed and the male was arrested and charged."

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Commissioner outlines use of Tasers in Bermuda

BERMUDA - The newest lambs of the Church of taser.

April 21, 2010

Press statement by Commissioner of Police Michael DeSilva

The Bermuda Police Service (BPS) is announcing the introduction of TASER as a less-lethal use of force option in the list of approved defensive weapons being carried by police officers.

"TASER" is the manufacturer's name for an Electronic Control Device (ECD) that is widely used by law enforcement agencies across the world as a less-lethal option of defensive force. The TASER works by firing two small, dart-like electrodes at its target using nitrogen charges when the trigger is pulled. The electrodes are pointed to penetrate clothing and barbed to prevent removal once they are in place, and they remain attached to the main unit by conductive wire. The TASER releases a 5 second burst of electric charge at about 2,000 volts. The charge causes Neuromuscular Incapacitation by stimulating the sensory and motor nerves to the point where they are temporarily paralysed.

In simpler terms, the subject is unable to control major muscle movement and cannot move whenever the electric charge is being applied. TASER is not dependent on pain and is effective on subjects with a high level of pain tolerance. This makes the device safer and more effective than the use of Captor incapacitant spray or a strike from the ASP baton, both of which require the subject to comply with the sensation of pain.

The device has built-in accountability measures to determine when and by whom it was deployed, and it is fitted with a camera that records the entire incident from the moment the device is drawn by the officer.

The most recent US report on Use of Force, available on the company's website, paints a very clear picture on the effectiveness of the device, compared to other Use of Force options:

* Discharge of firearms: 500 deaths & 500 serious injuries per 1000

* Baton strikes: 780 serious injuries per 1000

* Use of TASER: 2 serious injuries per 1000

In nearly every police agency that has introduced the device significant reductions have been reported in the number of injuries sustained by police officers, as well as by persons being arrested. In a 2009 study in the UK, TASER devices were drawn over 600 times, but only fired 93 times: meaning that 85% of the time the mere presentation of the weapon was enough to gain compliance from the subject.

We have examined significant research conducted in the US, Canada and the UK before taking the decision to introduce TASER. The BPS is satisfied, based on all the research, that the TASER device is safe. I believe we are introducing it at the appropriate time, and that it is proportionate to the risks that exist on the street. The overriding principle of police operations is the protection of life - and that even includes violent subjects that would try to attack us. TASER puts another tool on the police officer's belt and gives him or her another option to consider before having to use a firearm against a threat.

Given the increase in armed operations that we are conducting, I am ensuring that we take all steps possible to make the use of police firearms a last resort, and only when it is absolutely necessary. I believe the introduction of the TASER device could potentially save the life of a person who might otherwise force a firearms confrontation with an armed police officer.

The purchase and training of the device has been delivered at a cost of about $150K. The funds were made available from the 2009/10 budget after approval to purchase was granted by Minister Burch, and approval to carry the device was granted by His Excellency the Governor following requests from the BPS last year.

The TASER will be out on patrol this week, and will be carried by all firearms officers. Additional officers will be issued with the device depending on the nature of their duties, starting with the Police Support Unit. That translates to about 1 officer in 3 on patrol will be armed with TASER. We will be monitoring the use and effectiveness of the device regularly to determine whether wider distribution is required.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Scottish police hit the beat with Tasers for the first time

April 21, 2010
By Paul O'Hare, The Daily Record

POLICE hit the beat armed with 50,000 volt Taser stun guns for the first time yesterday.

The controversial weapons are designed to help defuse volatile situations and protect officers from attack.

And from yesterday, they were issued to hand-picked Strathclyde beat officers in Glasgow city centre, Rutherglen and Cambuslang.

The areas were chosen as they have a high number of police assaults. Last year, more than 4000 officers were attacked in Scotland.

Human rights campaigners claim Tasers have caused hundreds of deaths in the US.

But Chief Constable Steve House blasted "hype and hysteria" and insisted the weapon was a safer alternative to batons and CS spray.

Previously, only firearms officers were authorised to use the guns, which have been deployed by Strathclyde cops 29 times since 2005.

On another 12 occasions, the mere shining of the red laser target dot on the offender has defused the situation.

Amnesty International claim Tasers have killed more than 300 people since 2001.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Getting Tased - Part 1

June 13, 2008
By Molly Priesmeyer, The Minnesota Independent

How Taser International expects to make millions from fear mongering, slick marketing and the Republican National Convention

A Taser shock has been called the “longest five seconds of your life.” It incapacitates the nervous system. It causes a loss of bowel and bladder control. It produces a 50,000-volt shock from up to 10 yards away that pulsates through the body and causes every muscle fiber to recoil and stiffen. Yet Taser International and the Minneapolis Police Department stress that the Taser is an extremely safe non pain-compliance tool. “It saves lives,” they insist.

Despite these reassurances, in November a United Nations Committee ruled that Taser use constitutes a “form of torture” that can result in death. And just this week a federal jury in San Jose found the company responsible for the death of a 40-year-old man, awarding his family more than $6 million in punitive and compensatory damages. It was a landmark case, the first of at least 69 wrongful-death lawsuits filed against Taser that the company has lost.

The family's victory caused Taser’s stock to plummet 12 percent on Monday. Taser scrambled to reassure Wall Street with a specious PR campaign emphasizing that the jury found Taser "only" 15 percent responsible for the man’s death. Reassuring Wall Street, after all, is paramount to Taser International's ongoing success: Analysts are banking on Taser’s earnings jumping 50 percent this year.

While Taser is hoping to reach that figure by expanding its reach in the consumer and overseas markets with more “fashionable” Tasers, the company continues to capitalize on the fear of 9/11 and the police departments that have grown increasingly militaristic because of it. Recently, the St. Paul Police Department purchased 230 additional Tasers, so that it will have one each for all of its 370 officers, just in time for the Republican National Convention. And earlier this week it was announced that 3,050 New York Police Department sergeants, or about 10 percent of NYPD officers, are adding the M-26 Taser to their belts.

From a 'deadly-force alternative' to something like a punch in the gut

One reason for Taser’s increasing windfall has been that the company has turned its original weapon-focused marketing initiative upside down by insisting the Taser is a hand-held lifesaver. Retired Minneapolis police officer Michael Quinn was a part of one of the first groups of MPD officers to get trained on stun guns. “It appeared like a useful tool,” Quinn says. “But even then the department as a whole was concerned about abuse of the weapon.” Quinn spent more than 20 years in the MPD and is author of "Walking with the Devil," a book about the police code of silence.

At the time of Quinn's stun-gun training, the leading manufacturer of such devices -- the company that would go public in 2001 as Taser International -- was on the verge of bankruptcy. After failing to tap the consumer market with products like the Auto Taser, an alternative to The Club that locked on steering wheels and came equipped with a motion-sensor alarm, the company began aggressively marketing its new stun gun, the Taser, to law-enforcement agencies. By the end of 1998, more than 100,000 Tasers were sold in the United States. Since then, more than 400,000 Taser devices have been sold to U.S. law-enforcement officials.

“I kept tabs on the Taser and went to a number of demonstrations,” Quinn says. “The Taser first came out as an option to the use of deadly force. In the case where there was extreme risk to yourself or somebody else, Taser was a great option.”

Quinn remembers watching sales and training videos that detailed only uncommonly dangerous scenarios as examples when the Taser should be deployed. “When you saw the original sales videos, they used pretty extreme cases, like ‘Here’s a guy wielding a machete we can’t get close to, or here’s a guy wielding a knife or another weapon.' They were able to Tase him from a distance and not get hurt,” Quinn recalls.

“It used to be put below deadly force, but not a long ways below that, on the use-of-force continuum,” Quinn continues. “Now it’s slid down that force continuum, where at some agencies if someone presents even a verbal resistance and says I am not going to go with you, officers are justified in using the Taser.”

According to an MPD manual revision (pdf) from April 2006: “The use of Tasers is normally considered to be at the 'hard empty hand' level of force [kicks, punches, or other striking techniques] or above on the MPD’s Use of Force Continuum. This level of force is approved for aggressive resistance and above. Tasers shall not be used on passive subjects or as a come-along tool.”

The MPD also says that “Tasers may only be used on children, visibly frail persons, women who are known to be pregnant, and people with known heart problems when other hard empty-hand control methods have failed or deadly force is justified.”

The St. Paul Police Department's requirements regarding Taser use are even less specific. The Taser Usage Procedures (pdf) sent to Minnesota Independent do not outline a use-of-force continuum nor any approved level of force. Instead, the procedures mostly pertain to protocol for filing required paperwork after the device is deployed. Repeated calls to the St. Paul Police Department asking for more specific information on guidelines related to Taser use were not returned.

Taser training videos: Not for public consumption

Taser International would not make its current marketing and training materials available to Minnesota Independent for review. “A lot of our marketing is personalized,” spokesperson Peter Holran says. “We tailor it to the client’s needs.” Holran would also not make available the marketing materials his team provided to the St. Paul Police Department in advance of the RNC.

“There was nothing out of the ordinary with the order,” he says. “They did their due diligence and decided to purchase the 250 Tasers. The info that we would have provided them is all on the Web site and supports the testing of the product,” he says.

However, Holran acknowledges that the police training videos are not actually available for public viewing. “The full eight-hour course is not available,” he says. “It provides tactics and training we do not want out to the general public for safety reasons.”

Holran insists that Taser International and its training videos play no role in determining an agency’s use-of-force guidelines for Tasers. “What we provide in our training courses and in the general instructions is how it is used,” he says. “Whatever the agency’s policies are would determine how you take someone into arrest,” he says. “That is not what Taser dictates.”

Yet Taser does show what the company considers “typical scenarios” in its training materials. Recent police academy graduate Justin Richards has seen the most recent videos during his training last semester at the Criminal Justice Law Enforcement Center in St. Paul. Gone are the machete-wielding psychos, and in their place are people throwing around smart talk and attitude.

“We watched videos where people were getting Tased,” Richards says. “Three-hundred-pound guys being ornery and combative, and once they get Tased they are done. They put their hands behind their back and are ready to go.”

As part of his training, he chose to be Tased. “If you are going to use it on people, I think you should experience it for yourself,” he says. The shock, Richards says, hurt like hell.

“It hurts bad,” he says. “I have a pretty high pain tolerance. I’ve had torn ACLs and broken bones. As soon as it hits you, your muscles lock up. You think 100 percent clearly though everything, which is both good and bad.”

Richards says he hasn’t had to use a Taser at his new job in Anoka County, but he thinks it’s an important tool for officers to carry. “It saves lives,” he says. “In certain situations, basically you are going to be Tased or get shot.”

A company claim of 'thousands of lives' saved

Despite Taser International's loss in court this week and the fact that Amnesty International says the Taser has contributed to more than 350 deaths in the United States and Canada, the company continues to insist its products save lives. The company’s tag line is “Protect Life,” turning the axiom of “self-protection” into a touchy-feely notion of protecting all.

“The way it saves lives,” Holran says, “is that it reduces the escalation of force. If someone takes a fighting stance or someone presents resistance, officers need to take the next step. If you are in that situation where that policy deems it can be used, if it used correctly and with good training, it ends the conflict immediately. And that saves lives.”

The company’s press kit says that “Taser devices have saved thousands of lives and have greatly reduced the injuries that officers and suspects would typically encounter when using hands-on techniques, fighting, punching, kicking and swing batons to stop suspects from hurting themselves, the public or other officers.

Taser doesn’t cite any study in its press kit that can back up its “thousands of lives” claim. Instead, the company attaches news stories where Tasers were used on people in danger of harming themselves. In one case, the company notes, a Taser was used to subdue a suicidal man who slashed his wrists with a razor and shouted at police to shoot him.

In fact, there is not a single independent study that provides conclusive evidence that Taser saves lives of officers or suspects. A 1999 study on police use of force released by the National Institute of Justice suggests Tasers have had little more than perceived effect in reducing officer and suspect injuries. The study of 26 agencies found that in a period spanning 1995 and 1996, prior to Taser’s widespread use by police departments, that about 10 percent of officers using force suffered injury, with less than 1 percent being serious. About 38 percent of the subjects were injured as the result of police use of force, including approximately 1.5 percent with major injuries.

In a Seattle Police Department study in 2002, one year after implementing the M26 Taser, 32 percent of subjects suffered injuries. Thirteen percent of those injuries occurred subsequent to Taser deployment, often from falling to the ground. And officers suffered injuries 18 percent of the time.

Since the beginning of this year, Taser use has contributed to 34 deaths. Four have occurred in June. And two have occurred in the Twin Cities.

Seven Coloradans have reportedly died as a result of Taser shocks.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Stunning Revelations - The Untold Story of Taser-Related Deaths

November 13, 2006
By Silja J.A. Talvi

TASER International Inc. maintains that its stun-guns are “changing the world and saving lives everyday.” There is no question that they changed Jack Wilson’s life. On Aug. 4, in Lafayette, Colo., policemen on a stakeout approached Jack’s son Ryan as he entered a field of a dozen young marijuana plants. When Ryan took off running, officer John Harris pursued the 22-year-old for a half-mile and then shot him once with an X-26 Taser. Ryan fell to the ground and began to convulse. The officer attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but Ryan died.

According to his family and friends, Ryan was in very good physical shape. The county coroner found no evidence of alcohol or drugs in his system and ruled that Ryan’s death could be attributed to the Taser shock, physical exertion from the chase and the fact that one of his heart arteries was unusually small.

In October, an internal investigation cleared Officer Harris of any wrongdoing and concluded that he had used appropriate force.

Wilson says that while his son had had brushes with the law as a juvenile and struggled financially, he was a gentle and sensitive young man who always looked out for his disabled younger brother’s welfare, and was trying to better his job prospects by becoming a plumber’s apprentice.

“Ryan was not a defiant kid,” says his father. “I don’t understand why the cop would chase him for a half-mile, and then ‘Tase’ him while he had an elevated heart rate. If [the officer] hadn’t done that, we know that he would still be alive today.”

Ryan is one of nearly 200 people who have died in the last five years after being shot by a Taser stun gun. In June, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would review these deaths.

Over the same period, Taser has developed a near-monopoly in the market for non-lethal weaponry. Increasingly, law enforcement officials use such weapons to subdue society’s most vulnerable members: prisoners, drug addicts and the mentally ill, along with “passive resisters,” like the protesters demonstrating against Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s attendance of a Rick Santorum fundraiser in Pittsburgh on Oct. 9. (See sidebar, “Passive Resisters.”)

Taser has built this monopoly through influence peddling, savvy public relations and by hiring former law enforcement and military officers—including one-time Homeland Security chief hopeful, Bernard Kerik. And now that questions are being raised about the safety of Taser weaponry, the company is fighting back with legal and marketing campaigns.

Birth of a Taser
In 1974, a NASA scientist named Jack Cover invented the first stun gun, which he named the TASER, or “Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle,” after Tom Swift, a fictional young inventor who was the hero of a series of early 20th century adventure novels. Because it relied on gunpowder, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms classified Tasers as registered firearms.

That changed in the early ’90s. According to Taser’s corporate creation story, co-founder Rick Smith became interested in the device after friends of his “were brutally murdered by an angry motorist.” Smith contacted Cover in the hopes of bringing the Taser as a self-defense weapon to a larger market. In 1993, with money from Smith’s brother Tom, they created Air Taser Inc., which would later become Taser International Inc. When Tasers were re-engineered to work with a nitrogen propellant rather than gunpowder, the weapon was no longer categorized as a firearm. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department adopted the guns, but they were not widely embraced by other departments.

Taser’s fortunes improved in 1998, after the company embarked on a new development program, named “Project Stealth.” The goal was to streamline stun gun design and deliver enough voltage to stop “extremely combative, violent individuals,” especially those who couldn’t be controlled by non-lethal chemicals like mace.

Out of Project Stealth, the Advanced Taser was born. When the weapon premiered in 2000—a model eventually redesigned as the M-26—the company brought on a cadre of active and retired military and law enforcement personnel to vouch for the weapon’s efficacy. The new spokespersons ranged from Arizona SWAT members to a former Chief Instructor of hand-to-hand combat for the U.S. Marine Corps.

Taser began to showcase the Advanced Taser at technology-related conventions throughout North America and Europe, billing it as a non-lethal weapon that could take down even the toughest adversary. Soon to be among those “dangerous” opponents were the protesters assembling in Philadelphia for the 2000 Republican National Convention.

By the following year, 750 law enforcement agencies had either tested or deployed the weapon. Today, more than 9,500 law enforcement, correctional and military agencies in 43 countries use Taser weaponry. In the past eight years, more than 184,000 Tasers have been sold to law enforcement agencies, with another 115,000 to citizens in the 43 states where it is legal to possess a stun gun.

When the electricity hits
Taser’s stun guns are designed to shoot a maximum of 50,000 volts into a person’s body through two compressed nitrogen-fueled probes, thereby disrupting the target’s electromuscular system. The probes are connected to the Taser gun by insulated wires, and can deliver repeat shocks in quick succession. The probes can pierce clothing and skin from a distance or be directly applied to a person’s body—a process known as “dry stunning”—for an ostensibly less-incapacitating, cattle-prod effect.

“The impetus for Tasers came from the often community-led search for ‘less-than-lethal’ police weapons,” explains Norm Stamper, former chief of the Seattle Police Department and author of Breaking Rank. “[There were] too many questionable or bad police shootings, and cops saying, correctly, that there are many ambiguous situations where a moment’s hesitation could lead to their own deaths or the death of an innocent other.”

According to Taser’s promotional materials, its stun guns are designed to “temporarily override the nervous system [and take] over muscular control.” People who have experienced the effect of a Taser typically liken it to a debilitating, full-body seizure, complete with mental disorientation and loss of control over bodily functions.

Many Taser-associated deaths have been written up by coroners as being attributable to “excited delirium,” a condition that includes frenzied or aggressive behavior, rapid heart rate and aggravating factors related to an acute mental state and/or drug-related psychosis. When such suspects are stunned, especially while already being held down or hogtied, deaths seem to occur after a period of “sudden tranquility,” as Taser explains in its CD-ROM training material entitled, “Sudden Custody Death: Who’s Right and Who’s Wrong.” In that same material, the company warns officers to “try to minimize the appearance of mishandling suspects.”

Taser did not respond to requests for an interview. But its press and business-related statements have consistently echoed the company’s official position: “TASER devices use proprietary technology to quickly incapacitate dangerous, combative or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves.” Another brochure, specifically designed for law enforcement, clearly states that the X26 has “no after effects.”

Ryan Wilson’s family can attest otherwise, as can many others.

Casualties and cruelties
In the span of three months—July, August and September—Wilson’s Taser-related death was only one among several. Larry Noles, 52, died after being stunned three times on his body (and finally on his neck) after walking around naked and “behaving erratically.” An autopsy found no drugs or alcohol in his system. Mark L. Lee, 30, was suffering from an inoperable brain tumor and having a seizure when a Rochester, N.Y., police officer stunned him. In Cookeville, Ala., 31-year-old Jason Dockery was stunned because police maintain he was being combative while on hallucinogenic mushrooms. Family members believe he was having an aneurysm. And Nickolos Cyrus, a 29-year-old man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was shocked 12 times with a Taser stun gun after a Mukwonago, Wis., police officer caught him trespassing on a home under construction. An inquest jury has already ruled that the officer who shot Cyrus—who was delusional and naked from the waist down when he was stunned—was within his rights to act as he did.

Although the company spins it otherwise, Taser-associated deaths are definitely on the rise. In 2001, Amnesty International documented three Taser-associated deaths. The number has steadily increased each year, peaking at 61 in 2005. So far almost 50 deaths have occurred in 2006, for an approximate total of 200 deaths in the last five years.

Amnesty International and other human rights groups have also drawn attention to the use of Tasers on captive populations in hospitals, jails and prisons.

In fact, the first field tests relating to the efficacy of the “Advanced Taser” model in North America were conducted on incarcerated men. In December 1999, the weapon was used, with “success,” against a Clackamas County (Ore.) Jail inmate. The following year, the first-ever Canadian use of an Advanced Taser was by the Victoria Police, on an inmate in psychiatric lockdown. Since that time, Taser deployment in jails and prisons has become increasingly commonplace, raising concerns about violations of 8th Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.

This summer, the ACLU of Colorado filed a class action suit on behalf of prisoners in the Garfield County Jail, where jail staff have allegedly used Tasers and electroshock belts, restraint chairs, pepper spray and pepperball guns as methods of torture. According to Mark Silverstein, legal director for ACLU of Colorado, inmates have told him that Tasers are pulled out and “displayed” by officers on a daily basis, either as a form of intimidation and threat compliance, or to shock the inmates for disobeying orders.

A recent report from the ACLU’s National Prison Project (NPP), “Abandoned and Abused: Orleans Parish Prisoners in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina,” concerns the plight of the estimated 6,500 New Orleans prisoners left to fend for themselves in the days after the monumental New Orleans flood. The NPP’s Tom Jawetz says that the organization has been looking into abuses at Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) since 1999, but that the incidents that took place in jails and prisons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina were unprecedented.

Take the case of New Orleans resident Ivy Gisclair. Held at OPP for unpaid parking tickets, Gisclair was about to be released on his own recognizance when Hurricane Katrina hit. After languishing with thousands of other prisoners in a flooded jail, Gisclair was sent to the Bossier Parish Maximum Security Prison. Once there, Gisclair apparently had the nerve to inquire about being held past his release date. Gisclair has testified that he was then restrained and stunned repeatedly with a Taser, before being thrown, naked and unconscious, into solitary confinement.

“I can’t imagine any justification for that,” says Jawetz. “[Prison guards] were kicking, beating and ‘Tasing’ him until he lost consciousness. A line was crossed that should never have been crossed.”

In March, Reuben Heath, a handcuffed and subdued Montana inmate, was shocked while lying prone in his bed. The deputy involved—a one-time candidate for sheriff—now faces felony charges.

Gisclair and Heath are among the inmates who have survived in-custody incidents involving the abuse of Tasers. Others haven’t been as fortunate. This year alone, those who have died in custody in the aftermath of being stunned by Tasers include Arapahoe County Jail (Colorado) inmate Raul Gallegos-Reyes, 34, who was strapped to a restraint chair and stunned; Jerry Preyer, 45, who suffered from a severe mental illness in an Escambia County, Fla., jail and was shocked twice by a Taser; and Karl Marshall, 32, who died in Kansas City police custody two hours after he was stunned with PCP and crack cocaine in his system.

Appropriate uses
“We are seeing far too many cases where Tasers are not being used for their intended purposes,” says Sheley Secrest, president of NAACP Seattle. “And many of these cases don’t end up getting reported or properly investigated because people are so humiliated by the experience.”

Former U.S. Marshal Matthew Fogg, a long-time SWAT specialist and vice president of Blacks in Government, says that if stun guns are going to be used by law enforcement, training on their use should be extensive, and that the weapons should also be placed high up on what police officers call the “use-of-force continuum.”

Fogg isn’t alone in calling for such measures. In October 2005, the Police Executive Research Forum, an influential police research and advocacy group, recommended that law enforcement only be allowed to use Tasers on people aggressively resisting arrest. The organization also recommended that law enforcement officers needed to step back and evaluate the condition of suspects after they had been shocked once. Similar recommendations were included in an April 2005 report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. That report also urged police departments to evaluate whether certain vulnerable groups—including the mentally ill—should be excluded altogether from being shot with Tasers.

Although Fogg’s organization has called for an outright ban of Tasers until further research can be conducted, Fogg says that he knows responsible members of law enforcement are perfectly capable of using the weapons effectively. Officers who are willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of the community, he emphasizes, must be given the tools and training to be able to minimize harm to themselves and to others.

Fogg, who also serves on the board of Amnesty International USA, says that too many members of law enforcement seem to be using them as compliance mechanisms. “It’s something along the lines of, ‘If I don’t like you, I can torture you,’ ” he says.

Some law enforcement agencies have already implemented careful use policies, including the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, which selectively hands out Tasers to carefully trained deputies. The department also prohibits use of Tasers on subjects already “under control.” According to Sheriff Michael Hennessey, deputies are not allowed to use stun guns in response to minor ineffectual threats, as a form of punishment, or on juveniles or pregnant women. Within the department, stun guns are purposely set to turn off after five seconds. Additionally, every use of the weapon in a jail facility must be videotaped.

“I authorize Tasers to be used on people who are at high risk of hurting themselves or deputies,” Sheriff Hennessey emphasizes. “Without options like these, the inmate and the deputies are much more likely to get seriously hurt.”

But when stun guns are used on people who don’t fit that criteria, Secrest says, the public should be asking serious questions about the efficacy of Taser use, particularly because of the emotional trauma related to Taser-related take-downs.

“When a person comes into our office after they’ve been [Tased], it’s not as much the physical pain they talk about as much as the humiliation, the disrespect,” she says. “The people [who are stunned by these guns] talk about not being able to move, and thinking that they were going to die.”

As for actual Taser-associated deaths, Secrest believes that they should be investigated just as thoroughly as deaths involving firearms. Instead, Taser injuries and deaths are typically justified because officers report that the suspect was resisting an arrest.

“That’s the magic word: ‘resisted,’” says Secrest. “Any kind of police oversight investigation tends to end right there.”

Capitalizing on 9/11
Despite these concerns, Taser International Inc. has thrived. The 9/11 terrorist attacks sent the company’s profits soaring. Many domestic and international airlines—as well a variety of major law enforcement agencies—were eager to acquire a new arsenal of weapons. Homeland Security money flooded into both state and federal-level departments, many of which were gung-ho to acquire a new arsenal of high-tech gadgets.

In 2002, Taser brought on former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik as the company’s director. Kerik had attained popularity in the wake of 9/11 as a law-and-order-minded hero; the company had seemingly picked one of the best spokespersons imaginable.

With Kerik’s help, company’s profits grew to $68 million in 2004, up from just under $7 million in 2001, and stockholders were able to cash in, including the Smith family, who raked in $91.5 million in just one fiscal quarter in 2004.

Unbeknownst to most stockholders, however, sales have been helped along by police officers who have received payments and/or stock options from Taser to serve as instructors and trainers. (The exact number of officers on the payroll is unknown because the company declines to identify active-duty officers who have received stock options.)

The recruitment of law enforcement has been crucial to fostering market penetration. For instance, Sgt. Jim Halsted of the Chandler, Ariz., Police Department, joined Taser President Rick Smith in making a presentation to the Chandler city council in March 2003. He made the case for arming the entire police patrol squad with M-26 Tasers. According to the Associated Press, Halsted said, “No deaths are attributed to the M-26 at all.”

The council approved a $193,000 deal later that day.

As it turned out, Halsted was already being rewarded with Taser stock options as a member of the company’s “Master Instructor Board.” Two months after the sale, Halsted became Taser’s Southwest regional sales manager.

In addition, Taser has developed a potent gimmick to sell its futuristic line of weapons. In 2003, Taser premiered the X-26. According to Taser’s promotional materials, the X-26 features an enhanced dataport to help “save officer’s careers from false allegations” by recording discharge date and time, number and length and date of discharges, and the optional ability to record the event with the Taser webcam. The X-26 also boasts a more powerful incapacitation rating of 105 “Muscular Disruption Units”, up from 100 MDU’s for the M-26.

The X-26 is apparently far more pleasing to the eye. As Taser spokesperson Steve Tuttle told a law enforcement trade journal, “It’s a much sexier-looking product.”

Lawsuits jolt Taser
As increasing numbers of police departments obtained Taser stun guns, the weapons started to be deployed against civilians with greater frequency.

Many of the civilian Taser-associated incidents have resulted in lawsuits, most of which have either been dismissed or settled out of court. But there have been a few exceptions.

In late September, Kevin Alexander, 29, was awarded $82,500 to settle an excessive force federal lawsuit after being shocked 17 times with a Taser by a New Orleans Parish police officer. The department’s explanation: the shocks were intended to make him cough up drugs he had allegedly swallowed.

One recently settled Colorado case involved Christopher Nielsen, 37, who was “acting strangely” and was not responsive to police orders after he crashed his car. For his disobedience, he was stunned five times. When it was revealed that Nielsen was suffering from seizures, the county settled the case for $90,000.

An Akron, Ohio, man also recently accepted a $35,000 city settlement. One day in May 2005, he had gone into diabetic shock and police found him slumped over his steering wheel. Two officers proceeded to physically beat, Mace and Taser him after he did not respond to orders to get out of the car.

Taser’s lack of response to the misuse of the company’s weapons is troubling. The company relentlessly puts a positive spin on Taser use, most recently with a “The Truth is Undeniable” Web ad campaign, which contrasts mock courtroom scenes with the fictionalized, violent antics of civilians that prompt police to stungun them.

The campaign involves print ads, direct mail DVDs and online commercials that “draw attention to a rampant problem in this country: false allegations against law enforcement officers,” according to Steve Ward, Taser’s vice president of marketing.

“We’re going to win”
The lawsuits have scared off some investors, making Taser’s stock extremely volatile over the years. But press coverage of the company this past summer largely centered around Taser’s “successes” in the courtroom. In addition to settling a $21.8 million shareholder lawsuit revolving around allegations that the company had exaggerated the safety of their product (they admitted no wrongdoing), Taser has triumphed in more than 20 liability dismissals and judgments in favor of the company. And the company’s finances are on the upswing: Third-quarter 2006 revenues increased nearly 60 percent.

Regardless, CEO Rick Smith claims his company is target of a witchhunt. “We’re waiting for people to dunk me in water and see if I float,” is how he put it during a March 2005 debate with William Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International USA.

Last year, with 40 new lawsuits filed against it, Taser dedicated $7 million in its budget to defending the company’s reputation and “brand equity.” The company has also gone on the offense, hiring two full-time, in-house litigators.

At one point, Taser hinted that it might sue Amnesty International for taking a critical position regarding Taser-associated injuries and deaths. In November 2004 Smith announced that the company’s legal team had begun a “comprehensive review of AI’s disparaging and unsupported public statements [to] advise me as to various means to protect our company’s good name.”

In one of the company’s brashest legal maneuvers to date, Taser sued Gannett Newspapers for libel in 2005. The lawsuit alleged USA Today “sensationalized” the power of Taser guns by inaccurately reporting that the electrical output of the gun was more than 100 times that of the electric chair. This past January, a judge threw the case out, saying that the error in the article was not malicious, and that the story was protected by the First Amendment.

The company remains unwavering and aggressively protective, even as Taser-associated deaths mount each month. As Smith told the Associated Press in February, “If you’re coming to sue Taser, bring your game face, strap it on and let’s go. We’re gonna win.”

From Jack Wilson’s standpoint, citizens are the real losers. His son Ryan lost his life in a situation that could have been handled any number of other ways, and no amount of legal posturing can bring Ryan back.

“I still can’t believe my son is gone,” he says. “The fact is that these Tasers can be lethal. No matter how they’re categorized, Tasers shouldn’t be treated as toys.”

Thanks to the Nation Institute’s Investigative Fund for research support, and to David Burnett for research assistance.

Friday, December 10, 2004

Security nominee got rich on tasers - Kerik's relationship with stun-gun firm earned him millions

December 10, 2004
Eric Lipton, New York Times

Washington -- Just five years ago, Bernard Kerik was facing lawsuits from a condominium association and bank over delinquent payments owed on a modest New Jersey condo he then owned. Today, he is a multimillionaire, the result of a lucrative partnership with former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and an even more profitable relationship with a stun-gun manufacturer.

If he is confirmed to the post of homeland security secretary for which he was nominated by President Bush last week, he will oversee an enormous department that does business with some of the companies that helped make him wealthy.

The list of income sources that transformed the former New York City police commissioner into a wealthy man is a diverse one, including a best- selling autobiography, speeches around the United States and service on corporate boards. Kerik even sold the rights to make a feature film about his rags-to-riches life to Miramax.

But it is the relationship Kerik has had since the spring of 2002 with Taser International, a Scottsdale, Ariz., manufacturer of stun guns, that has by far been the biggest source of his newfound wealth, earning him more than $6.2 million in pre-tax profits through stock options he was granted and then sold, mostly in the last month.

Kerik benefited largely because the company has enjoyed an extraordinary surge in its stock. Stock options that were worth very little at the time became extremely valuable, in part because of the sales pitch that Kerik made on the company's behalf to other police departments.

The sales driving Taser's growing profits come mostly from local and state governments. But while Kerik has served on the company's board, it has made an aggressive push to enter markets either regulated or controlled by the federal government, most notably the Department of Homeland Security. A White House spokesman said Kerik would resign from the board and sell his remaining stock if confirmed.

At one point, Kerik referred Taser executives, seeking more federal business, to a Customs and Border Protection official of the Homeland Security Department, according to the company president.

"Anyone in a federal law enforcement position is a potential customer," said Thomas Smith, president and co-founder of Taser International, who said he had hired Kerik because of his prominence as New York's police commissioner. "And we are going to continue to go after that business."

Kerik declined, through a spokeswoman, to discuss his work for Taser. Although he is required for at least one year to recuse himself from decisions involving his former clients or partners, that will not prohibit the Homeland Security Department from doing business with those companies. A White House spokesman said Kerik would adhere to "the highest ethical standards" and ensure there are no conflicts of interest.

In 2002, Taser International sought to significantly expand its sales to law enforcement agencies, and it needed a high-profile former public official who could serve as a spokesman for its product, said Smith. Kerik, he added, was the perfect candidate, having served as both corrections and police commissioner. Kerik's role working alongside Giuliani on Sept. 11, 2001, had also earned him a national reputation, particularly in the law enforcement world.

From the moment he joined Taser's board in May 2002, Kerik became one of Taser's chief spokesmen before police officials.

Kerik also defended the guns against criticism that their use had contributed to the deaths of suspects who have been fired upon by police.

Amnesty International said there had been 74 Taser-related deaths in North America since 2001 and called for a suspension on the use of the device until its safety was further investigated. An Air Force laboratory that conducted research on the guns said last month that it could not determine whether they were safe, in contrast to statements from Taser that the laboratory had found its weapons generally safe and effective.

The Taser publicity campaign has been an enormous success. More than 6, 000 police departments and prisons today use Tasers, compared with only a handful five years ago, and Taser International's sales have climbed from $6.9 million in 2001 to about $68 million this year.

Kerik will have to be approved by the Senate before he takes control of the Homeland Security Department. Several members of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, which must approve his nomination, declined to comment when asked about Kerik's private sector work.

Sunday, July 18, 2004

As police use of tasers rises, questions over safety increase

July 18, 2004
Alex Berenson, The New York Times

AZARETH, Pa. — As the sun set on June 24, something snapped in Kris J. Lieberman, an unemployed landscaper who lived a few miles from this quiet town. For 45 minutes, he crawled deliriously around a pasture here, moaning and pounding his head against the weedy ground.

Eventually the police arrived, carrying a Taser M26, an electric gun increasingly popular with law enforcement officers nationwide. The gun fires electrified barbs up to 21 feet, hitting suspects with a disabling charge.

The officers told Mr. Lieberman, 32, to calm down. He lunged at them instead. They fired their Taser twice. He fought briefly, collapsed and died.

Mr. Lieberman joined a growing number of people, now at least 50, including 6 in June alone, who have died since 2001 after being shocked. Taser International, which makes several versions of the guns, says its weapons are not lethal, even for people with heart conditions or pacemakers. The deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway, the company says.

But Taser has scant evidence for that claim. The company's primary safety studies on the M26, which is far more powerful than other stun guns, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. Company-paid researchers, not independent scientists, conducted the studies, which were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Taser has no full-time medical director and has never created computer models to simulate the effect of its shocks, which are difficult to test in human clinical trials for ethical reasons.

What is more, aside from a continuing Defense Department study, the results of which have not been released, no federal or state agencies have studied the safety, or effectiveness, of Tasers, which fall between two federal agencies and are essentially unregulated. Nor has any federal agency studied the deaths to determine what caused them. In at least two cases, local medical examiners have said Tasers were partly responsible. In many cases, autopsies are continuing or reports are unavailable.

The few independent studies that have examined the Taser have found that the weapon's safety is unproven at best. The most comprehensive report, by the British government in 2002, concluded "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " Britain has not approved Tasers for general police use.

A 1989 Canadian study found that stun guns induced heart attacks in pigs with pacemakers. A 1999 study by the Department of Justice on an electrical weapon much weaker than the Taser found that it might cause cardiac arrest in people with heart conditions. In reviewing other electrical devices, the Food and Drug Administration has found that a charge half as large as that of the M26 can be dangerous to the heart.

While Taser says that the M26 is not dangerous, it now devotes most of its marketing efforts to the X26, a less powerful weapon it introduced last year. Both weapons are selling briskly. About 100,000 officers nationally now have Tasers, 20 times the number in 2000, and most carry the M26. Taser, whose guns are legal for civilian use in most states, hopes to expand its potential market with a new consumer version of the X26 later this summer.

For Taser, which owns the weapon's trademark and is the only company now making the guns, the growth has been a bonanza. Its stock has soared. Its executives and directors, including a former New York police commissioner, Bernard B. Kerik, have taken advantage, selling $60 million in shares since November.

Patrick Smith, Taser's chief executive, said the guns are safe. "We tell people that this has never caused a death, and in my heart and soul I believe that's true," Mr. Smith said.

Taser did not need to disclose the British results to American police departments, he said. "The Brits are extremely conservative," he said. "To me, this is sort of boilerplate, the fine print." In addition to Taser's animal trials, thousands of police volunteers have received shocks without harm, Mr. Smith said.

But the hits that police officers receive from the M26 in their Taser training have little in common with the shocks given to suspects. In training, volunteers usually receive a single shock of a half-second or less. In the field, Tasers automatically fire for five seconds. If an officer holds down the trigger, a Taser will discharge longer. And suspects are often hit repeatedly.

Over all, Taser has significantly overstated the weapon's safety, say biomedical engineers who separately examined the company's research at the request of The New York Times. None of the engineers have any financial stake in the company or any connection with Taser; The Times did not pay them.

Relatively small electric shocks can kill people whose hearts are weakened by disease or cocaine use, said John Wikswo, a Vanderbilt University biomedical engineer. But no one knows whether the Taser's current crosses the threshold for those people, Dr. Wikswo said.

"Their testing scheme has not included the possibility that there is a subset of the population that is exquisitely sensitive," Dr. Wikswo said. "That alone means they have not done adequate testing."

Mr. Smith said Taser would eventually run more tests. "In a perfect world, I'd love to have studies on all this stuff, but animal studies are controversial, expensive," he said. "You've got to do the reasonable amount of testing." Comparing Taser's tests with the studies conducted by makers of medical devices like pacemakers is unfair, he said.

Dr. Andrew Podgorski, a Canadian electrical engineer who conducted the 1989 study, said he was certain that Tasers were dangerous for people with pacemakers. More research is needed to determine if other people are vulnerable, he said.

"I would urge the U.S. government to conduct those studies," Dr. Podgorski said. "Shocking a couple of pigs and dogs doesn't prove anything."

In More Officers' Hands

Many police officers defend the Taser, saying the weapon helps them avoid using deadly force and lowers the risk of injury to officers. Tasers let police officers subdue suspects without wrestling with or hitting them, said David Klinger, a former police officer and a criminology professor at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. And Tasers are surely safer than firearms.

"I think it is appropriate for deployment in the field," Mr. Klinger said. "You trust this guy or gal with a gun, you should be able to trust them with a less lethal device."

But human rights groups say the police may be overusing the Taser. Because the gun leaves only light marks, and because Taser markets it as nonlethal, officers often use it on unruly suspects, not just as an alternative to deadly force, said Dr. William F. Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International USA. In recent incidents, officers have shocked a 9-year-old girl in Arizona and a 66-year-old woman in Kansas City.

"We think there should be controlled, systematic independent medical studies," Dr. Schulz said. "We would like to see these weapons suspended until these questions are answered."

A study by the Orange County, Fla., sheriff's office showed that officers used pepper spray and batons much less after getting the guns. But the use of Tasers more than made up for that drop, and the department's overall use of force increased 58 percent from 2000 to 2003. Last week, several police departments in Orange County agreed to restrict the use of Tasers to situations where suspects are actively resisting officers. The sheriff's office is not part of the agreement and says it is still studying the matter.

State and federal agencies do not keep tabs on Taser use, so no one knows how many times officers have fired the weapon. Officers have reported close to 5,000 uses of the M26 to Taser, but the company says the actual number is much higher.

Little evidence supports the theory that Tasers reduce police shootings or work better than other alternatives to guns, like pepper spray. Because of their limited range, Tasers are best in situations where an officer using a Taser is covered by another with a firearm, officers say.

A 2002 company study found that nearly 85 percent of people shocked with Tasers were unarmed. Fewer than 5 percent were carrying guns.

In Phoenix, which has equipped all its officers with Tasers, police shootings fell by half last year. Taser trumpets that statistic on its Web site. But last year's drop appears to be an anomaly. This year, shootings are running at a record pace, according to the Phoenix police department.

A 2002 study in Greene County, Mo., found that Tasers were only marginally more effective than pepper spray at restraining suspects. Pepper spray worked in 91 percent of cases, while the Taser had a 94 percent success rate.

The largest police departments have been slow to embrace the Taser. The New York Police Department owns only a handful of Tasers, which are used by specialized units and supervisors, a spokesman said.

'Gold in Those Hills'

The M26 was introduced only five years ago, but the technology is much older. John Cover, an Arizona inventor, created the Taser in 1969. Its name stands for "Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle," an allusion to the Tom Swift series of science fiction novels.

Engineers have known for generations that relatively small electric currents cause painful and uncontrollable muscle contractions. Tasers operate on that principle, firing barbs that are connected by wire to the gun and flood the body with current. The gun can deliver its shock even if the barbs do not break the skin because its current can jump through two inches of clothing.

Weak currents are not inherently dangerous if they stop in a few minutes. But stronger shocks can disrupt the electrical circuitry of the heart. That condition, ventricular fibrillation, causes cardiac arrest in seconds and death in minutes, unless the heart is defibrillated with an even larger shock.

The exact current needed to cause fibrillation depends on technical factors like the current's shape and frequency, as well as the heart's condition, said James Eason, a biomedical engineering professor at Washington and Lee University. But because fibrillation is so dangerous, scientists can conduct only limited human trials. They must estimate the threshold of fibrillation from animal trials and computer models.

Still, the broad parameters for fibrillation are known, and the first Taser from Mr. Cover had a large safety margin. In 1975 the Consumer Product Safety Commission concluded that weapon, which was 11 percent as powerful as the M26, probably would not harm healthy humans.

Then, in March 1976, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms claimed it had jurisdiction over the weapons because gunpowder propelled their barbs. The firearms bureau essentially outlawed them for civilian use; no federal safety standard was ever created.

But the original Tasers were bulky and often ineffective. For almost two decades, they remained a niche product used by a few police departments.

That began to change after 1993, when Mr. Smith and his brother Thomas created a company to market electric weapons to civilians. Patrick Smith, who had just graduated from the University of Chicago business school, saw enormous potential for an alternative to firearms.

"I just figured I'm going to go to out to Arizona, and I'm going to scratch and sniff and dig, and figure there's going to be gold in those hills," Mr. Smith said in an interview.

In January 1995, the Smiths introduced their first electric gun, which was powered by compressed nitrogen. As a result, the weapon was not regulated by the firearms bureau and could be sold to civilians.

For the next several years, the company struggled, as concerns over the gun's power kept sales slow. By 1999, the company, now known as Taser International, was near bankruptcy, with only $50,000 in the bank and $2.7 million in debt.

"It was pretty humiliating," he said. "We had completely wiped out my parents financially."

Testing

Hoping to stay afloat, the company introduced the Advanced Taser M26 in December 1999. The weapon closely resembled a handgun, a feature many police officers liked, and was very powerful.

According to Taser, the gun produced 26 watts of power, four times the power of the earlier model. A field test in 2001 by the Canadian police showed that the M26 was even stronger, with an output of 39 watts.

(Stun gun power is usually gauged in watts, a measure of electrical energy, even though the biological effects of electricity are more closely related to current strength, measured in amperes. Electrical engineers often compare the flow of electricity to a river: amperes are like the river's speed, while watts are the amount of water flowing by each second. As watts increase, amperes rise, but more slowly.)

Taser's sales rose as officers learned about the new gun. At meetings with police officers, company representatives encouraged them to receive a half-second shock to feel the weapon's power for themselves. "These guys would leave just absolutely evangelical about the product because we would just drop them all," Mr. Smith said.

In its marketing, the company touted the safety of the M26, saying it had been extensively tested.

But Taser had performed only two animal studies before introducing the M26.

In 1996, Taser hired Robert Stratbucker, a Nebraska doctor and farmer, to test the weapon. Dr. Stratbucker, who is now Taser's part-time medical director, shocked a pig 48 times with shocks as large as those from the M26. The pig suffered no heart damage.

Three years later, the company hired Dr. Stratbucker and Dr. Wayne McDaniel, an electrical engineer, for an animal test at the University of Missouri. The scientists shocked five anesthetized dogs about 200 times with the M26. The dogs did not suffer cardiac arrest, although one animal had changes in its heartbeat, according to a report.

Taser has repeatedly said the studies proved that the M26 was safe. But the biomedical engineers who reviewed the gun's safety for The Times said Taser should have conducted far more research.

"I don't think there has been a definitive study saying that yes it can contribute to death or no it cannot," said Dr. Raymond Ideker, an electrophysiologist and a professor in the cardiology division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Taser must test more animals and vary the shocks they receive to find the gun's safety margin, Dr. Ideker said.

In addition, while Taser claims that its Missouri study proves that the gun is safe for people who have used cocaine, it never tested animals dosed with cocaine. Because cocaine substantially increases heart attack risk, and Tasers are used on people who have taken cocaine, that omission is a serious flaw, said Dr. Wikswo of Vanderbilt.

The company should also examine risks other than fibrillation, some scientists say.

Dr. Terrence Allen, a former medical examiner in Los Angeles who examined cases in the late 1980's when people died after being shocked with earlier-model Tasers, said he was sure the weapons could be lethal. Taser is misrepresenting the medical evidence, said Dr. Allen, who has consulted for people who have sued the company.

Dr. Mark W. Kroll, a Taser director and the chief technology officer of St. Jude Medical, one of the largest pacemaker manufacturers, said Taser had adequately tested its weapons and they were safe. External pacemakers deliver much larger charges and do not cause fibrillation, he said.

Dr. Ideker countered that pacemakers and Tasers could not be easily compared, because the Taser's shock is very short and powerful, while a pacemaker delivers its charge over a much longer period.

Although Taser has performed only rudimentary studies of the M26, it has more closely studied the X26, the gun it introduced last year. In a 2003 study at the University of Missouri, Taser found that a shock roughly 20 times that of the X26 caused a healthy, anesthetized 85-pound pig to fibrillate.

Mr. Smith cites the 2003 Missouri study as proof that all Tasers have a safety margin of 20-to-1 or more. But the new gun puts out a charge only one-fourth as large as the older model, a fact Taser does not generally advertise.

The study said nothing about the M26, or about hearts stressed by disease, drugs or physical activity. "I think another test is warranted," Dr. Ideker said.

Taser did not test the older gun, which is associated with nearly all the deaths, because "we believed that the M26's safety record and prior testing speaks for itself," Mr. Smith said. "Could it be done? Absolutely. There's time and expense involved."

The X26 has become Taser's biggest seller, based mainly on the company's claims that it is even stronger than the M26 despite its small size and lower power. The company says the new gun enables electrical current to enter the body more efficiently.

No independent agency has tested the guns side by side, and in Taser's patent on the M26, Mr. Smith himself argued that weaker guns were often ineffective because they do not deliver enough current to incapacitate suspects. But neither deaths nor concerns about effectiveness have dampened police support and investor enthusiasm for Taser International. Stock analysts predict Taser will have $15 million in profits on sales of $60 million in 2004. Investors have bid up the company's shares 60-fold since last February, giving Taser a value of $1.2 billion.

The Smith brothers and their father, Phillips, have sold $46 million in Taser shares since November, according to federal filings. They still own $130 million worth of shares. Other Taser executives and directors have sold $14 million in stock. Mr. Kerik, the former New York police commissioner and a director, has sold $900,000 in stock. Mr. Kroll of St. Jude Medical has sold $1.7 million.

"It's been great," Patrick Smith said of the company's recent success. But making money is not his main goal, he said. "If we could get a Taser on every officer's belt,'' he said, " it would save hundreds of lives or thousands of lives a year."

Deaths and Questions

Meanwhile, the number of Taser-associated deaths is rising. In June alone, at least six people died, the most ever in one month: Eric B. Christmas, James A. Cobb, Jacob J. Lair, Anthony C. Oliver, Jerry W. Pickens and Mr. Lieberman.

The circumstances of the deaths vary widely. Among the six, Mr. Pickens was the only one hit with the X26.

Mr. Cobb fought for several minutes after being shocked, which suggests that fibrillation could not have caused his death. Some of the other men collapsed immediately, according to news reports and witnesses. Some of the men were fighting with the police when officers shot them. Others simply refused to obey orders.

Mr. Pickens was one. On June 4, in Bridge City, La., the police were summoned to help calm him after an argument with his 18-year-old son, Taylor Pickens. Jerry Pickens confronted the police in the family's front yard.

"My dad, he had been drinking, and he was kind of hostile toward the police,'' Taylor said. "He kept trying to go back inside the house, and they said, 'If you're going to go back into the house we're going to Taser you.' " Mr. Pickens who was unarmed, began to walk inside, Taylor said.

"They counted down three, and then they shot him in the back," Taylor said. "My dad stiffened up, and fell back." Mr. Pickens hit his head on a cement walkway and began foaming at the mouth, Taylor said.

Sharon Landis, Taylor's mother and Mr. Pickens's wife, said officers did not need to shock her husband. "They could have pepper-sprayed him, they could have grabbed him," she said. "He's 55 years old, and these are big burly cops."

Mr. Pickens was pronounced brain-dead that day and removed from life support three days later, Ms. Landis said.

Toxicologic tests on Mr. Pickens are being conducted, said Gayle Day of the Jefferson Parish coroner's office. A spokesman for the sheriff's office said he could not comment on a continuing investigation. Mr. Smith said he could not comment on Mr. Pickens's death.

Three weeks later, Kris Lieberman died in Pennsylvania. The officers who shocked him were the only witnesses to his death, which the Pennsylvania State Police are investigating. But Mr. Lieberman's parents said the state police told them that their son was shocked twice and collapsed afterward. [Stan Coopersmith, chief of the Bushkill Township Police, whose officers responded to the call, said he could not comment on the incident until the state police finish their investigation.] But Taser said that the police chief had told the company that Mr. Lieberman fought briefly after the shocks and that an automatic defibrillator used by the officers indicated Mr. Lieberman was not fibrillating when he collapsed.

"I would suspect the autopsy will find a cause of death that does not include the Taser," Mr. Smith said.

Mr. Lieberman's parents say that he was troubled but that he did not use drugs. Police officers searched Mr. Lieberman's home after the shooting and did not find drugs, his parents say. Toxicologic tests are pending, the Northampton County Coroner said.

Mr. Lieberman's father, Richard, a plain-spoken farmer, said he had not decided whether to hire a lawyer. He simply wants to know if the gun caused his son's death. "If he was the problem, we have to accept it," Mr. Lieberman said. "If they were the problem, they have to accept it."

Eric Dash contributed reporting from New York for this article.

Monday, September 01, 1997

Shock Value - U.S. stun devices pose human-rights risk

September 1997
Shock Value
By Anne-Marie Cusac
September 1997

Amnesty International lists the United States in the same class as Algeria and China in a March 1997 report. All three countries appear under a section titled, “Recent Cases of the Use of Electroshock Weapons for Torture or Ill-Treatment.”

A decade ago, the United States did not often show up as a culprit in Amnesty reports. But lately, the United States has become a leading manufacturer and exporter of pushbutton electricshock devices, which Amnesty claims are unsafe and are ending up in the hands of torturers. Of the 100 companies listed in the report, forty-two are U.S.-based. According to Amnesty, countries that have received stun weapons exported from the United States in the last decade include Yemen, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Argentina, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, Cyprus, and Thailand.

One company the report cites is ArianneInternational of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which makes the “Myotron”--a compact version of the stun gun “available in pearl, black, or white,” a salesperson tells me over the telephone. The company advertises the device as “small enough to carry on a big key ring and flat enough to carry in a shirt pocket. It’s five times more powerful than the best police stun gun.” A related device, the “Myotron-TM Venu,” is marketed especially to women.

Other prominent U.S.-based manufacturers of stun weaponry include Stun Tech of Cleveland, Ohio, known for its stun guns, stun shields, and especially its stun belts; Nova Products, Inc., of Cookeville, Tennessee, maker of tasers, along with other electronic devices; and Safe Defense Co., of Greenville, North Carolina, which, according to the company’s president, markets its stun guns to the general public through variety stores, “gun shops, pawn shops, uniform stores, and flea markets.”

Another company that makes an appearance in the Amnesty report is B-West Imports, Inc., of Tucson, Arizona, which in 1995 joined a South African company called Paralyzer Protection. B-West brings in Paralyzer shock batons and shields that deliver a charge of between 80,000 and 120,000 volts.

A B-West advertising brochure claims, “The Paralyzer stun baton is the result of a unique process developed by German scientists and doctors. The extensive testing done by the Department of Medicine at the University of Dusseldorf resulted in the correlation of volts, amps, and frequency to render a would-be assailant helpless without any damage to skin, eyes, or internal organs.”

Amnesty takes issue with that account. “The professor has since told Amnesty International that he was not specifically involved in developing the ‘Paralyzer’ range of stun guns and batons, but simply tested a particular stun device for another company in March 1985, the results of which cannot be applied directly to other stun devices,” the report states.

The report also devotes considerable attention to Tasertron, of Corona, California, the first company to manufacture the taser--a weapon that shoots two wires attached to darts with metal hooks from as far away as thirty feet. When the hooks catch in a victim’s skin or clothing, the device delivers a debilitating shock. Los Angeles police officers used the device against Rodney King in 1991.

A version of the weapon, the Air Taser, launches “two small probes attached to fifteen feet of TASER wire” through the air, according to the manufacturer, Air Taser, Inc., of Scottsdale, Arizona. Because the device uses air instead of gunpowder to power the shot, it is not regulated by the gun-control laws that apply to other tasers, which are banned for sale to consumers. The company has multiple Internet sites, complete with visuals. One image shows a small woman in high heels and a short skirt shocking a much larger man in a black knit cap. A jagged charge travels from her hand to his chest, where it creates a small explosion. “The AIR TASER sends powerful T-Waves™ through the wires (and up to two cumulative inches of clothing) into the body of the assailant, jamming his nervous system and incapacitating him,” proclaims the ad.

Air Taser also markets a new product it calls the Auto Taser. “Imagine an automotive defense system that fights back,” the company says. “Any attempt to touch the AUTO TASER zaps the thief with an unforgettable, yet non-lethal 5,900 milliwatt electron pulse. A thief can’t steal what he can’t touch.” The accompanying photograph shows a dark parking lot. A man reaches through a car window and lightning runs up his arm to his shoulder. He is grimacing and is falling backwards.

Air Taser claims its corporate mission is “to raise mankind above violent behavior by developing products which enable people to protect themselves without causing injury or death to another human being.”

But these devices also prove quite handy for people who want to commit crimes. In Britain, a country that prohibits handguns, stun weapons became a favorite tool of muggers until the government banned them.

Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union both claim the devices are unsafe and may actually encourage sadistic acts by police officers and prison guards. “Stun belts offer enormous possibilities for abuse and the infliction of gratuitous pain,” says Jenni Gainsborough of the ACLU’s National Prison Project. She adds that because use of the belt leaves little physical evidence, this increases “the likelihood of sadistic, but hard-to-prove, misuse of weapons.”

“It’s possible to use anything for torture, but it’s a little easier to use our devices,” admits John McDermit, head of Nova Products.

In 1991, Terence Allen, a specialist in forensic pathology who served as deputy medical examiner for both the Los Angeles and San Francisco coroner’s offices, linked the taser to fatalities. “The taser contributed to at least these nine deaths,” Allen wrote in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. “It seems only logical that a device capable of depolarizing skeletal muscle can also depolarize heart muscle and cause fibrillation under certain circumstances.”

With electrical current, Allen tells me, “the chance of death increases with each use. This may have been a factor in Los Angeles. Some of the people who died there had been shocked as many as seven times.”

Warns Allen: “I think what you’re going to see is more deaths” from stun weapons.

As a result of his own work in forensic pathology, Allen is convinced that stun devices are already being abused in U.S. police stations and prisons. Some authorities, he says, can’t resist exploiting the power they have over people in their custody to “force them to lose control of their muscles.”

Allen describes a seventeen-year-old boy in Los Angeles who was accused of stealing. “They used a stun gun to extract a confession from him,” he says. “He had burns that exactly fit the probes.”

Allen is referring to the case of Jaime Ramirez. Before dawn on November 30, 1986, officers William Lustig and Robert Rodriguez stopped Ramirez, who was carrying a sack full of stereo parts, according to the Los Angeles Times. The two officers shocked the boy repeatedly with a stun gun in an attempt to force him to confess to stealing the equipment.

Ramirez sued the city. He testified that Lustig “told me that if I didn’t tell the truth, he was going to burn me,” reported the Los Angeles Times. Both officers then used the stun gun on Ramirez. “I felt like I was being burned,” the Los Angeles Times quoted Ramirez as saying. “I could not keep my legs still. . . . I was feeling the pressure in my heart. I could not breathe freely.” The two officers lost their jobs. Both were convicted and served time behind bars. The city of Los Angeles settled with Ramirez for $300,000.

Los Angeles is not the only American city where police officers abuse people with electroshock weapons. Phoenix, Arizona, is home to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, author of America’s Toughest Sheriff: How We Can Win the War Against Crime. But, under Arpaio’s charge, the Maricopa County Jails have come under some harsh criticism. In March 1996, the Department of Justice’s civil-rights division filed a report on the jails that strongly condemns “the fact that all jail guards carry stun guns. The easy availability of these weapons,” the Department of Justice examiner concluded, “has contributed to the excessive use of force.”

Guards at the Maricopa County Jails have been known to use the stun gun against an inmate “simply to see its effect,” the report states. It also cites “use of a stun device on a prisoner’s testicles while in a restraint chair.”

The Maricopa County Jail disputes nearly every charge in the Department of Justice report. They are “allegations by prisoners, unsubstantiated remarks,” says Lisa Allen, coordinator of communications for the sheriff’s office. The county complains that the Department of Justice report does not provide inmate names, dates, or times of the alleged incidents. But in fact, the report draws on videotapes and jail documents in addition to prisoner testimony.

“I’ve seen the photos. I’ve talked with inmates. I’ve seen the letters. I have dates. I have times,” says Nick Hentoff, a criminal and civil-rights attorney in Phoenix who says he has represented clients in “about a dozen suits ” against the Maricopa County Jails involving stun weapons. He says the county jails “have countless videos that show it.” Hentoff’s client, Bart David, currently has a lawsuit pending against the county. He claims that guards at one of the jails shocked him in the testicles.

In 1996, the Phoenix New Times, a newsweekly, reported the death of jail inmate Scott Norberg at the Maricopa County Jails. Norberg died while fighting with officers who were attempting to confine him in a restraining chair while strapping a towel around his mouth “to keep him from spitting.”

During the struggle, jailers shocked Norberg multiple times with stun guns. Inmates who witnessed Norberg’s death estimated that he had been shocked between eight and twenty times. Guards estimated the number of shocks at between two and six. “An examination of Norberg’s corpse commissioned by Norberg’s family puts the number at twenty-one,” wrote New Times reporter Tony Ortega.

Although the medical examiner ruled the death an accident, “at least one detention officer . . . contradicts the scenario that Norberg suddenly went limp,” wrote Ortega. “In fact, she claims she tried to tell the guards that they were suffocating Norberg, who had literally turned purple. She says an officer snapped back at her, ‘Who gives a fuck?’”

“Their policy is stun first, ask questions later,” says Hentoff. He claims to have seen “dozens of pictures” of jail inmates with stun burns. “You’ll see two little marks close together like vampire bites on their bodies,” says Hentoff. “Those are the stun-gun marks.”

In a letter released on August 3, 1997, Amnesty International detailed several more recent incidents of mistreatment at the Maricopa County Jails, including an inmate who “allegedly sustained broken teeth and spine and knee injuries after being kicked and beaten and stunned repeatedly with a stun gun.” After the beating, the prisoner alleges, he was confined for five hours in a restraining chair.

A second inmate fell asleep during processing in a central-intake room. “A stun gun was allegedly used to wake him up,” says Amnesty. The prisoner claims he was then thrown against a wall.

Ortega talked to a nurse in July who spilled the beans on her co-workers at the Maricopa County Jails. She told him many guards “seem to delight in treating inmates badly.” One time, “she saw a detention officer bring a man suffering from abdominal pain into a clinic,” Ortega reported. “The man refused to say what was wrong with him, so the detention officer zapped the patient with a stun gun to make him talk. ‘None of us could believe it,’ she says.”

Amnesty International claims the Commerce Department is not limiting sales of electronic devices overseas. “The United States will say it opposes torture, and it’s a party to the convention against torture,” says Brian Wood of Amnesty International. “However, as each month goes by, more and more of these electric-shock weapons are exported, and information is withheld about where, exactly, they’re sent to. This is unacceptable, especially since Amnesty first raised this issue with the U.S. government over a decade ago.”

Although Amnesty has asked the United States to guarantee that it will not knowingly export electroshock devices to torturing states, the Clinton Administration has yet to agree to slow the brisk U.S. trade in stun devices. In response to Amnesty’s campaign, over the past few months governments in Germany, Belgium, and the United Kingdom have announced that they will tighten prohibitions on the trade in stun weapons.

Though electric torture is on the rise worldwide, the U.S. Commerce Department does not group electroshock weapons with torture items, whose export it restricts. Instead, it classifies such devices as police equipment, which makes them easily exportable. The stun belt is considered offensive (as opposed to defensive) police equipment, so it still must receive a license before export to most countries. But, as Michael Lelyveld reported last year in The Journal of Commerce, manufacturers in NATO countries import stun devices as general merchandise and the U.S. Commerce Department does not track them.

“The lack of official data raises the possibility that this country may be the world’s biggest source of such products,” wrote Lelyveld. “But without tighter regulation, it is impossible to know.”

One NATO country that uses electronic weapons for torture is Turkey. Amnesty’s report cites the case of Mediha Curabaz, a twenty-five-year-old nurse. Police detained her on the street in 1991 and took her to the political branch of the Adana police headquarters. “They were making baseless accusations about people I work with and about people from the Adana Nurse’s Association, on whose committee I serve,” the Amnesty report quotes Curabaz as saying. “They asked me to support their allegations. . . . When I refused, they beat me furiously all over, took me in the room used for hanging people up by their arms or legs, and gave me electric shocks through my fingers, sexual organs, and nipples, saying degrading things about my body. They said, ‘You will certainly do what we say if we give you the electric truncheon.’ They thrust the electric truncheon violently into my sexual organs, and I felt a pain as if I was being drilled there with an electric drill.”

NATO countries can also provide an easy route for manufacturers intent on shipping their devices to other torturing states. “It begs the question, should the United States export them at all?” says Lelyveld.

Would the United States, under any circumstances, ever allow the export of the stun belt, for instance, to a torturing state? “I would not feel comfortable saying ‘never under any circumstances,’” says a Commerce Department spokesperson.

The U.S. Government itself is a big user of stun devices, especially stun guns, electroshock batons, and electric shields. In June 1996, Amnesty International asked the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to suspend use of the electroshock belt--citing the possibility of physical danger to inmates and the potential for misuse. The agency has not complied.

Amnesty International has come down particularly hard on the state of Wisconsin--which has a place of prominence in the March report for its plan to use the stun belt on chain gangs. That plan has now gone into effect. Wisconsin’s new chain gang started work at Fox Lake prison on June 2. The state has conducted no studies on the use of the belt on chain-gang members, even though physical work and summer heat could contribute to a dangerous level of stress on an inmate’s heart if he were shocked.

The first inmate to wear the belt on the Wisconsin chain gang was seventeen-year-old Clark Krueger. Though Krueger is a minor, he is doing time as an adult. But he is still subject to anti-smoking laws that apply to minors. And Krueger likes to smoke. He has been caught with cigarettes five times, enough to earn him 180 days in the segregation unit or a stint on the chain gang, according to Mary Neuman, the administrative captain at Fox Lake in charge of supervising the new work crews. Clark opted for the chain gang.

The state’s use of the belt on a minor is of special concern to Amnesty. Brian Wood calls it a “violation of the international convention on the rights of the child.”

When Fox Lake guards objected to the state’s plan to dress all members of the crew in stun belts, the Department of Corrections asked the prison to place the belt on at least one inmate at a time. Now the guards in charge of the gang are “moving it from one inmate to another from one day to the next,” says Gerald Berge, the warden at Fox Lake.

When I visit the prison, Berge tells me the prisoners are at work off prison grounds, at a cemetery in the city of Fox Lake. I follow Berge’s car down several miles of rural roads. It is a bright, windy July day--the first cool afternoon in a week. The graveyard lies next to a marsh and a curving river. Some of the headstones in the graveyard are more than 100 years old.

We watch as an inmate shifts a gravestone forward. A second worker dumps gravel behind the marker to prop it up. The inmates wear standard-issue green clothing and bright yellow vests. Each has twenty-five-inch leg restraints with padded cuffs around the ankles. They are chained to themselves, not each other. It is impossible to tell which inmate wears the stun belt under his clothes. Mary Neuman says that, for security reasons, she can’t let me know who has it on.

Two guards advise the work crew. A third stands back and watches, a rifle slung over his shoulder.

I am surprised. Wasn’t the stun belt supposed to make supervision with guns unnecessary?
Even if the entire work crew were to wear the stun belt, a guard with a gun would watch over them, says Berge. “The statute says one of the guards will be armed.”

When it comes to the stun belt, Berge is no cheerleader. “I would not feel comfortable having inmates out here all in stun belts without restraints,” he says.

“I think, frankly, the stun belt is more appropriate for transport,” Berge goes on. “We don’t have experience with inmates in stun belts working. It’s hard to endorse that.”

I ask Berge if he would feel comfortable if the crew were wearing only individual leg chains, and no belt. “Yes,” he says. Is he concerned about possible injury? “Not really,” he says. Then he qualifies the point. “If we had an inmate who had a cardiac condition that we were not aware of, that’s where the danger would be.”

After a few minutes of conversation, Neuman brings over inmate Earl Simington, who has agreed to talk with me about his experience on the chain gang. Simington is typical of the inmates assigned to the crew--someone let out on parole, who, as Neuman puts it, “didn’t get the message” and has landed back in prison. He is currently serving a thirty-month sentence.

“I have three misdemeanors and one felony on my record, and I’ll be twenty-seven at the end of July,” says Simington. He tells me his felony conviction was for possession of fifteen grams of marijuana.

Simington volunteered for the new chain gang because he was bored. “It’s not for the pay,” he tells me (inmates on the chain gang make between twenty and thirty cents per hour, according to Berge). “It makes my time go faster.”

Before he started work on the chain gang, the prison required Simington to sign a form giving officers permission to make him wear the belt and to shock him with it if he misbehaves.

He then practiced working outside cutting grass while wearing the belt. Simington is most concerned about the belt’s weight, and the discomfort from wearing it in the heat. The belt has a good heft, he tells me. He says if it were mandatory daily wear, he wouldn’t volunteer for the chain gang. “No one will want to be out there” if they have to wear it, he says.

Simington can’t remember seeing any medical information on the form he signed. “I was never told, except, ‘you may lose your bodily functions,’” he says. “I don’t know if there are any long-term effects or damage or anything like that. I would want to find out if there are bad sideeffects. I don’t know how long it’s been studied on people.”

Simington believes he has signed away his rights when it comes to the device. “When I signed that waiver form, that was saying, hey, you volunteered,” he says. “If you get hurt you can’t bring repercussions if it’s because of your behavior.”

Simington says the stun belt is too much. “We’re already doing time. We’re already chained. What more?”

Manufacturers of electroshock weapons continue to wave aside allegations that use of their devices is dangerous and may constitute a gross violation of human rights. And they are making innovations on some old favorites. A new stun weapon that may soon arrive at a police department near you: electroshock razor wire, specially designed for surrounding demonstrators who get out of hand.